Newsletter

Letters to the editor Wednesday

For many years, the Center for a Sustainable Coast has aggressively opposed proposals to drill for oil and gas in the Atlantic Ocean along Georgia’s coast.

Now resurrected by the Trump Administration, offshore drilling comes at a time when global supplies of fossil fuels are glutted and the U.S. is exporting more oil and gas than ever before. Yet, employment by fossil fuels is less than the number of jobs created by the development of clean energy, primarily solar and wind power.

Contrary to claims made by ill-informed or biased politicians, much of America’s offshore production of oil and gas — if it ever happens — will be destined for foreign markets. Therefore, such resources are not for “American energy independence” but rather intended to serve the profit motives of massive fossil-fuel corporations.

This means that coastal Georgia’s thriving tourism and outdoor recreation economy – worth about $2 billion annually and supporting some 40,000 jobs — would be jeopardized just to enable oil and gas companies to squeeze more profits by exploiting offshore reserves.

These reckless offshore activities, concurrent with rollbacks in legal safety measures, would impose unacceptable risk to beaches, marshes, wildlife, and barrier islands. One only needs to recall the 2010 BP oil spill to conjure horrifying images that we must do everything possible to prevent occurring on Georgia’s coast.

Moreover, offshore oil and gas development along our shoreline would raise the specter of unprecedented industrialization of Georgia’s coast. Any such outcome would severely degrade our region’s quality-of-life and world-renowned natural environment. Allowing risky exploration and extraction of these resources is simply not in the interest of Georgia’s citizens and taxpayers.

Furthermore, demand for fossil fuels is projected to be declining, as many nations are actively developing electric vehicles. Additionally, many cities, including Atlanta, have adopted plans to eliminate the use of fossil fuels to reduce emission of climate-warming greenhouse gases. By the time any nearby offshore fossil fuels would be available — if they ever are — there would be greatly reduced need for these resources. It would be far more strategic to keep oil and gas in the ground for future use, if ever needed.

Accordingly, we encourage coastal Georgians to join us in actively opposing offshore drilling. We are submitting written comments to federal officials, explaining our well-reasoned, ample justifications for defeating the proposal in the public interest.

DAVID C. KYLER

Center for a Sustainable Coast

Saint Simons Island

Letter writer misses a point

Regarding the letter to the editor from Dick Miller in the Jan. 6 edition of the SMN: Mr. Miller disregards one very important point when he says “As he begins the second year of his first term, he continues his activist posture and intends to address many of the areas remaining to keep us from regaining our greatness.”

That point is that Trump won’t finish out his first term due to being confirmed of being a crook and subsequently impeached. Ironically this will result in making America great again.

WILL DARSEY

Midway

Panel didn’t represent any of Confederate heritage groups

Several months ago the City of Savannah put together a task force to determine what, if anything, should be done to the Confederate Monument in Forsyth Park. The city also opened a poll asking the populace their opinion on the future of the monument.

An overwhelming percentage of respondents answered that the city should leave it alone. Meanwhile, representatives from eight organizations were named as members of this task force and were asked to analyze those results, along with other information, and offer a recommendation.

Would someone please explain why there was not a single representative from any of the Savannah area’s several Confederate Heritage organizations asked to serve on a task force charged with determining the future of a Confederate monument?

Those who participated in the poll, and other inquiring minds, deserve an answer to this question.

ANDREW P. CALHOUN, JR.

Savannah

Trump can control his destiny

The publication of “Fire and Fury” by Michael Wolff could present a positive or negative result. It is a concise detail of the many issues with President Donald Trump and his White House. Assuming the reader of this content is aware of the dynamics presented in the media, it is suggested two opposite results are possible: Either Mr. Trump will undertake a major change in ways or his term in office will be shortened. Both are within his control.

How would he know the content is “phony” if he does not read the book? Hence, we do not have to worry about Trump reading this text. (In candor, this writer had not read the actual volume, therefore, ignorance suggests total objectivity.)